/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15642036
>Rind study is an outlier, their conclusion is irrelevant as all other meta analysis say the opposite, outliers are expected in research but they do not change what the literature on the aggregate says
The literature in the aggregate can be disregarded precisely because of the flaws identified in the Rind study, which is the point of the Rind study. If you agree with the rationale behind the Rind study, you would agree that much of the literature is massively flawed.

People can independently review the literature themselves while keeping in mind the methodological flaws pointed out by the Rind team. There are various other studies which have come to the same conclusion as the Rind study going back decades, and the results are continually reaffirmed. Voluntary adult-child sexual relations are not assocaited with any harm whatsoever.
>The rind team is a bunch of retards, their study has many errors among them statistical errors
You're just quoting from the Wikipedia page again. The Rind team responded to all those criticisms (which is on the Wikipedia page itself) and none of them were valid. I have included one paper where he deals directly with these criticisms, but more can be found on sci-hub.
>Survivorship bias, it's garbage evidence
It's a study on active pedophile relationships which precludes survivorship bias.
>All studies done on native tribes are confounded by survivorship bias, they are worthless as you are always looking at a tiny subset of a population by default, you are overlooking every one who did not pass your biased observation
You don't understand what survivorship bias means.
>>15642043
>he says without providing a counterargument